Having almost always lived in the East - or at least, definitely NOT in the "West"! - I know that is really touchy nomenclature so I didn't even go there. Especially like Hope, having no idea where Onsen is from. (Another reason that the line asking for "location" is there for a reason: not to track you, but to be able to know how to be able to understand and talk with each other!)

Technology is global: communication is instant - researchers from all over the world work together:- the finest minds in the world in research, innovation, practice of "Western" medicine are, by sheer numbers alone, Asian and Chinese.

I've always resented - even though I totally understood how it came about - a category that equates good, trustworthy, up-to-date and scientifically rigorous medicine solely to the "West".

But after living in and around China, I discovered that many Asians & Chinese people find this a real bone of contention - predominantly in the youth culture: those who are studying aspects of modern/contemporary medicine or just starting out in practice.

People who live in the West dont MEAN they believe only medicine developed in the West can be trusted. They mean exactly what most people mean when they refer to "modern medicine." Governments wouldn't use that categorization "Western Medicine" at all if they really knew it could be considered arrogant/offensive. The concept's the same: it's just the name most people ever give a thought to.

If Onsen doesn't come from China/Asia and has never even heard any opinions on the matter? Ah well.... I guess now he has.

I think you guys have misunderstood. The quoted sentence by Mariam-Webster was what amused me - nothing to do with Jackson or spelling.

Yes, re English spelling - it IS confusing! But, for those who learn about the history of the English language; the history of England and it's influences; and about Greek, Roman and Early French, etc. these "mad" spelling make sense and you begin to understand what a word means simply by looking at it closely. If the spelling is "simplified" we lose that ability. Cut out the parts of the word that aren't strictly phonetic and you no longer have a point of reference to see how the word is composed and, thus, what it means. Or, more importantly, how to use it for the purpose it was intended to serve.

Lazarius is right that the average person wouldn't care. As long as they can be understood by other people, and can write and read texts, the newspapers etc. that's all they need the language for.

But for those whose careers and livliehood depend on the accurate and most effective use of language - writers, scholars, educaters, communicators, - the way the word is spelt is extremely important and valuable. Being able to use a word for the purposes it was intended is a skill necessary to all those who communicate publicly - playwrights,lecturers, politicians, journalists, actors, translaters, leaders: - the millions of people whose knowledge of and use of English either makes or breaks them - to them it does matter.

(And to all the other millions of proof-readers, agents, Editors who make their living correcting other people's mistakes! )

What you have asked is exactly what I would ask: I'd want to know more about the school; I'd want to know what teaching method they use and, very importantly, I'd want to know how much it's going to cost.

The thing is, you said "If medicine can be divided in two in terms of time..." and the thing is, with subjective words such as "modern"...it can't.

Our knowledge of medicine didn't stop at one period (old) and then begin again in another time we call "modern". It's continually evolving.

So "modern" medicine could be seen by some to have begun when "germ theory" began to be recognised, which would have been around the 1860s; others might insist that "modern medicine" began with the X-ray when, for the first time, we could look inside people, rather than guessing what was going on inside them.(around the end of the 19thC.) There are others who might insist that "Modern" medicine didn't begin until the usage of antibiotics around the time of WW2.

But usually "modern medicine" describes the kind of medicine we are currently using - so that people in the 17thC considered they used modern medicine. And so did people in the 19thC, and so did people in 2000.

There is NO point at which one can define "modern" medicine...except the very day we are speaking of. By tomorrow new treatments, causes etc. may have evolved and the way we treat TB will change: whatever we have used until then would be considered "old", "outdated" and, sometimes, even wrong.

And, as you have seen from people's responses, there are many different styles of medicine that have been around for a long time - traditional, shamanistic, tantric, herbal, complementary, alternative etc. which "modern" people still use.

So, if a doctor knew the patient, and knew they were a practioner of some other form of medicine they might say: "Shamanism cannot cure TB" or "Traditional medicine cannot cure TB".

But, in general, we don't actually compare "modern" medicine to "old-fashioned" medicine - we are too aware that what's considered the best, most modern technology and treatment can change rapidly. So we usually say things like "Thank goodness for modern medicine." "I wouldn't be alive if it weren't for modern medicine." or "If I'd had TB 200 years ago I would be dead by now."

The thing is, too, that in "modern" times, many people are turning to all kinds of different treatments or beliefs - we have to be careful not to damn particular systems: one of them might be the kind someone else swears by or believes passionately in. And ALL forms of medicine and medical practitioners are well aware that positive belief in something is all part of the practice of medicine. If a patient truly doesn't believe something is going to work - modern or not - then they won't get better.

So that's why I said there is no synonym for "modern medicine". It isn't a fixed term, but is truly subjective: it's meaning isn't a fixed point you can point to.

Ah - mystery solved! I know you aren't the kind of person to mess people round - so I was a bit puzzled at first. Then I realised someone else must have been posting because sometimes in a post, things that I KNEW you knew, would come up. But, of course wasn't sure.

As someone suggested, perhaps she could have her own account? Then we'd have a better idea of how to answer both you and her? However, am glad to have the mystery solved: I'd thought at first that maybe you were going through some trauma that made you forget things!

Despite all this discussion of technical imperitives, the fact remains that your sentence is still incorrect and does not make sense. All of these peripheral, technical posts cannot mask the fact that the collocation "how much" needs to replace "how many".

It's a simple correction and all it needs is for you to revise the use of "how much" and "how many".

In China it is still the custom not to eat everything on one's plates. One of the reasons foreigners are considered uncouth is because of our cultural imperitive to finish everything.

Drago - Doggy bags? Do you not have a dog? It's not only a Brighton-thing, but wherever I've gone - even to swanky London restaurants - and asked for a doggy-bag there's never been any problem or misunderstanding about it. At times when I've been a bit under the weather and eaten hardly anything I've had servers ask if I'd like to have it made into a Doggy-bag. As my dog weighs 2.2k I'm pretty sure no-one expects he's going to eat it all!

No, you weren't the only one to remember. Koh often asks about the same thing more than once - which has made me wonder at times if there are more than one people using the same account? Because it can be a bit of a disapointment, when one has taken a lot of trouble with one's answer, to find the same question asked again, and sometimes within a rather short space of time.